Supermarkets, grocery clerks reach tentative contract deal [details]

AP via San Diego Union Tribune ^ | February 26, 2004

[John Jorsett]

LOS ANGELES – Negotiators for three supermarket chains and grocery clerks reached a tentative contract agreement Thursday, creating hope that the longest supermarket strike in U.S. history would end and send 70,000 financially strapped employees back to work.

Greg Denier, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, declined to disclose details of the agreement.

The 4½-month strike inconvenienced millions of shoppers in Southern California and led to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for the three grocery chains, which had taken a stand against rising employee health costs.

Officials with the union must submit the proposed contract to members for approval. It was not immediately known when they might end pickets and return to work. Voting could begin as early as Friday.

The strike targeted Albertsons Inc., Kroger Co., which owns Ralphs, and Safeway Inc., the parent firm of Vons and Pavilions, affecting 859 stores from San Diego north to San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield. Sympathetic shoppers flocked to smaller chains and specialty stores to avoid picket lines.

Negotiations had been deadlocked over the cost and scope of health benefits and a proposed two-tier wage system for future employees.

Union leaders framed the dispute as a national bellwether in the fight to preserve affordable health care insurance for the working class.

However, some shoppers saw the clerks as low-skilled workers who had enjoyed free health benefits for too long. Others put the blame on the supermarkets, criticizing their move to cut labor costs to compete against Wal-Mart and other non-unionized, big-box supermarkets.

The strike cost the grocery chains an estimated $2.5 billion in lost revenue. Safeway and Kroger each reported net losses exceeding $100 million in the quarter ended Dec. 31.

It became the longest-running strike in the history of U.S. supermarket labor but fell far short of the five-year strike by grape pickers in Delano during the 1960s – the longest in California history.

The strike by grocery clerks involved the most California workers since a general strike in Oakland in 1946 that saw 130,000 members of several unions walk off their jobs in support of department store workers.

[ambrose]

Greg Denier, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, declined to disclose details of the agreement.

In other words, they caved.

[Texaggie79]

Since when did 16 year olds get a union? LOL

[John Jorsett]

In other words, they caved.

Don't be rediculous. They're simply sparing the supermarket's feelings over the union's stunning victory.
:-)

[John Jorsett]

What a rediculous spelling of ridiculous.

[PRND21]

Maybe next time, huh?

[Poohbah]

In other words, they caved.

Yup. The stores said, "Hey, this is the best deal you're gonna get, it's only going to go downhill after the strike starts."

[John Jorsett]

KFI news just reported that voting by the union membership could begin as early as Friday.

[kingu]

On Tuesday night, I was at my local Vons, and the replacement workers were talking among themselves as to what the future would hold. I'm not exactly sure what the deal was, but it appeared that management spread the word among the temp workers what was going on.

They were talking specifics; what stores they might be able to transfer to, how many workers would be laid off from the strikers when they returned to work, and alas, they were too efficient for me to listen in too long without being obvious.

Apparently my local store's staff will be reduced by at least a quarter, temp workers will be given priority for any open perm slots. I didn't catch what they were saying about the pay scale, and I wish I did. It'll be interesting to find out if the replacement workers get to hop on to the old scale or if they get nailed with the new one.

Anyway, just overheard stuff, no sources other than idle conversations between others that I have no idea if they were in the know or not. Didn't mention it before now, mostly because I didn't know if the deal was or wasn't close.

[GeronL]

The companies should have just said "what employees? those people don't work here anymore"

[John Jorsett]

There were rumors during the negotiations that the union would accept a two-tier system, with new hires getting lower wages and fewer benefits. That rings true with the supermarket position pre-strike, so I'm guessing that any temp workers hired on permanently won't be getting what the union people get.

[Justa]

I was in LA county a few weeks ago and loved the Strike-Marts. No lines and great deals. 50% off was the usual markdown. I went to several Albertsons and as time went on it seemed like more and more customers were returning. It looked to me that the strike was failing so my guess is the union caved.

$20/hr. for unskilled labor and they go on strike? ...Duhhhh.

This isn't over. It won't be until management gets rid of the union, which should be rather easy over the long run.

[Inspectorette]

I work for a large aerospace company. The two-tier wage system was instituted there 10 years ago. Nobody likes it, but unfortunately, the company has a lot more of the marbles than does the union. (Not to mention, our health benefits have been eroding since 1993 as well. We're paying more for less.)

[Steven W.]

My son was working for a Vons but his union membership period didn't complete before the strike began (just a couple weeks later). He didn't work at first but did later on for this 2nd tier lower wage. He was told that because of his union status (or non-status) at the time of the strike and because he'd taken the 2nd tier wage job he would still be eligible to keep working and rejoin the union when the strike was over. What's your take? what should he expect?

[dpwiener]

Here's an excerpt from the Los Angeles Times report:

"The stores accomplished such goals as installing a two-tier system of employee compensation, under which new hires would earn considerably less in wages and benefits than current employees, the sources said.

"There also would be a cap on how much the supermarkets contribute to their employees' healthcare coverage, a change the stores aggressively sought in order to combat rising healthcare costs, they said. Until now, all of the workers' healthcare costs have been borne by the stores.

"The union, meanwhile, persuaded the grocery stores to contribute more money into the workers' heathcare reserve fund, the sources said. The upshot of that move, they said, is that veteran grocery employees should not have to contribute to their healthcare coverage in the first two years of the contract, although they might have to pay some amount during the third year."

Offhand it sounds like the Supermarkets got most of what they wanted. The Unions have a fig-leaf in that they'll get a little more money into the health care plan for veteran employees. But after two or three years the Supermarkets should see their health care costs start ratcheting down.

[pointsal]

Duh...go out on your own hook as an individual in a one man shop.........insurance costs too damned much and the insurance companies don't pay squat. This whole system should go back to cash and carry.....no insurance. The cost would be less if you really saw what things cost.

[John Jorsett]

What's your take? what should he expect?

No idea, but the union people aren't big fans of the people who -- in their viewpoint -- displaced them during the strike. Maybe they'll welcome him into the union anyway, but I'd have thought he'd get a hard time. I have no particular insight into this, so I'll be the first to say that my guess isn't any better than yours.

[Steven W.]

you're correct, that's the usual scenario and one possibility he was aware of.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Shall I assume this only applies to So. California? Could we see a repeat of this in No. California when their contracts are up? (The cretins were up here picketing anyway at selected stores including a couple of mine)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There were rumors during the negotiations that the union would accept a two-tier system, with new hires getting lower wages and fewer benefits. That rings true with the supermarket position pre-strike, so I'm guessing that any temp workers hired on permanently won't be getting what the union people get.

I heard that too, this morning on one of the local TV morning shows, as informed speculation. Also that some of the Health Benefits might be cut significantly.